Significantly Insignificant? The Life in the Margins of that Strasbourg ECtHR

Excerpts from my complaint “Complaint with the ECtHR about tricky Munich judge“. BTW, my second greatly treasured Single judge decision.

“According to the C.’s knowledge, the President of SC Mrs. Mente was in contact with the Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office in the period from June 2, 2020 to June 16, 2021 (A PSC 1, PSC 2) due to alleged insults of Judge E. by the C. (Az. 845 Ds 259 Js 153060/20) The C. is perplexed, how a court, which is in contact with the public prosecutor’s office Munich over a period of one year and was “supplied” in this period with submissions against the C. by Judge E., is able to judge independently and unprejudiced. Several negative decisions by Judge E. fell into this period. One wonders why a president of a social court does not preemptively relieve the judge of the cases. Perhaps it was assumed that the public prosecutor’s office would not grant access to the files. “False face must hide what the false heart doth know.””

A judge who files a criminal complaint for alleged insult is at the same time able to judge independently and unbiased? Seriously, ECtHR? That’s bold.

“Even more perplexing is why a judge is so eager to continue to judge after these declarations of no confidence. To suppress documents, to table fraudulent decisions in disregard of the BSG judgment of 24.11.2010 – B 11 AL 35/09 R (keyword “allowance” (“Freibetrag”)), to accept open racist insinuations from the JC unquestioned (sublease contract of the daughter deemed not credible), to ignore an important witness summons.”

A judge who waves through fraud by disregarding vital parts of a court decision of a higher court is acting properly? You must be kidding, ECtHR.

“A monetary adjustment from 2019 onwards decided by the Federal Cabinet, to which the JC deliberately did not comply (action in Sept. 2019, S 42 AS 1968/19), leaves him cold and he passes a complaint for failure to act of May 2020 on to the Bavarian LSG at a cost of € 560.00. There is nothing at all to decide for a judge here. It is virtually a law.”

What exactly is the purpose of a law then, ECtHR?

“He forces the C.’s daughter to appear in court in person under the threat of a penalty payment of € 1,000 in the event of non-appearance. (A 15) This in a case in which part of her earnings from a vacation job were requested by the JC by threatening confiscation. (S 42 AS 2594/16)”

So the ECtHR is of the opinion a judge can blatantly indulge in migrant voyeurism by forcing a migrant to appear in his court who has been defrauded by the Jobcenter Munich of her legally earned money during a vacation job? Interesting take, ECtHR. Kudos.

Not done with that, “Judge” Ehegartner resorts to a blatant lie. The power of attorney of my Tibetan daughter allegedly did not exist. Why not, after all, this is racist Germany, almost anything goes. Trouble is, the POA was faxed to the Munich court in Oct. 2019.

“Judge E. had deliberately falsely claimed at the hearing in Oct. 2020 in the presence of C’s lawyer that the C.’s daughter had not sent a power of representation (A 9) to the SC.”

Suppression of documents is “judge” Ehegartner’s go-to means.

“The part of the chairman of the 42nd chamber of the Munich SC, Judge Ehegartner (hereinafter ‘Judge E.’), in the representation of the interests of the JC includes suppression of documents, refusal to allow the lawyer to inspect files over two years in three cases concerning the C.’s daughter. He communicates with the C. instead of the lawyer. Not an isolated case at the SC according to Google Reviews!”

What would then be the purpose of Art. 6 3c ECHR (to defend himself through legal assistance)? Refusal of inspection of court files by the lawyer is condoned by the ECtHR? All that is deemed dispensable when a court from the Western part of Europe is involved, right? It is fairly obvious that the ECtHR is heavily negatively biased towards Eastern countries, ain’t it so?

“He insists on electronic forms of communication that do not exist at the JC.”

A whole slew of decisions is based on this requirement. The Jobcenter does not provide any form of submitting documents with a qualified electronic signature. This is Bavaria where hibernation in public offices runs twelve months. And get this, I sent an email to the criminal head of the JC, Anette Farrenkopf, in June requesting the name of Electronic Signature Card(s) they accept. No answer.

. . . . . . . . . .

Dinah Shelton, Professor of International Law Emeritus, provides an explanation in the Pdf ‘Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights‘:

As states do not like to be found in violation of their human rights obligations, it is not surprising that they would seek to limit admissibility, even (or especially) in respect to meritorious claims.

Currently, the Registry undertakes an initial evaluation of applications. A nonjudicial rapporteur23 from the Registry decides whether the application should be assigned to a single judge, a Committee or a Chamber, and assists the single judges, transmitting the lists of cases deemed inadmissible to the judges for approval. The President of the Court decides on the number of judges designated to sit as single judges and appoints them to serve for a period of one year.24 The Rules of Court provide that where the material submitted by the applicant is ‘on its own’ sufficient to disclose that the application is inadmissible or should be struck out of the list, it is to be considered by a single judge unless there is some special reason to act to the contrary.25 The single judge may declare inadmissible or strike out the application without further examination or appeal, notifying the applicant of the decision by letter. As Cameron has noted and judges on the Court have confirmed in discussions with the author, the lists transmitted electronically to the single judges contain only one or two sentence summaries of each matter recommended for dismissal, identify- ing the right being invoked; the judges do not see the applications26 and a few have complained of feeling that they are expected to ‘rubber-stamp’ the decisions of the Registry.27 Once the application is rejected, the author of it is sent a form letter so indicating, without explanation or reasoned decision, simply stating that ‘taking ac- count of all the elements in its possession, and to the extent that it is able to evaluate the allegations formulated’, the Court sees no reason to proceed.

She cites a further convenient fact in footnote 24:

The problem of a ‘hidden judiciary’ of secretariat lawyers making the actual decisions is not unique to the European system. Cameron notes that this can create problems of integrity when the Registry is partly staffed with temporarily seconded personnel paid for by individual states: see ibid. at 34.

For convenience sake (from Antoine Buyse’s Pdf ‘Significantly Insignificant? The Life in the Margins of the Admissibility Criterion in Article 35 § 3 (b) ECHR‘):

It could thus very well be that the admissibility criterion may continue its life in the margins of the Convention system. At the very least, it will become more invisible, since decisions by single judges usually remain unpublished.

There you go.

I am perplexed, ECtHR.